Accounts Get Net Worth Performance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as how performance is calculated or what data is aggregated, but it does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety, a mid-range score is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this is not a virtue when it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It lacks structure and front-loading of key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and a complex financial metric, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what 'performance' means, what the tool returns, or how filters and date ranges affect the output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 29%, meaning most parameters lack description. The tool description does not explain any parameters or their roles. For example, start_date, end_date, and filters are not mentioned, so the description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get net worth performance' provides a verb and resource, but 'performance' is vague and does not distinguish clearly from sibling tools like accounts_get_net_worth_breakdown or accounts_get_historical_balances. It lacks specificity on whether it returns returns, growth rates, or other metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention filtering by accounts, date ranges, or any context that would help the agent decide when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.